Search This Blog

Defendant Not permitted to say that the plaintiff signatures of Plaintiff are forged , being an octogenarian might not properly recognize the signature due to loss of sight = The petitioner filed a petition under Order 26 Rule 10-A of Civil Procedure Code r/w Section 45 of the Evidence Act, stating that the respondent-plaintiff refused to file the suit against the petitioner, and it is the sons of the respondent-plaintiff who have forged the signature of the plaintiff on the plaint and filed the suit. And hence, the petitioner prayed the Court below to send the admitted signature of the plaintiff on Ex.B1 along with the signature on the plaint for expert comparison. The trial Court dismissed the application by observing that the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and she categorically stated that she filed the suit against the petitioner-defendant. The trial Court further observed that the plaintiff being a lady aged 82 years, might not recognize her signature but her cross examination supports her pleadings in the plaint, and as the suit is at the stage of arguments, the defendant cannot question that the plaintiff has not filed suit against him.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 688 of 2016
ORDER:
This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated
05.07.2011 passed by the XIII Additional Chief Judge, Fast Track
Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in I.A.No.431 of 2011 in
O.S.No.319 of 2006. The petitioner herein is the defendant in the
suit.
2. Heard.
3. The petitioner filed a petition under Order 26 Rule 10-A of
Civil Procedure Code r/w Section 45 of the Evidence Act, stating
that the respondent-plaintiff refused to file the suit against the
petitioner, and it is the sons of the respondent-plaintiff who have
forged the signature of the plaintiff on the plaint and filed the suit.
And hence, the petitioner prayed the Court below to send the
admitted signature of the plaintiff on Ex.B1 along with the signature
on the plaint for expert comparison. The trial Court dismissed the
application by observing that the plaintiff was examined as PW1
and she categorically stated that she filed the suit against the
petitioner-defendant.The trial Court further observed that the
plaintiff being a lady aged 82 years, might not recognize her
signature but her cross examination supports her pleadings in the
plaint, and as the suit is at the stage of arguments, the defendant
cannot question that the plaintiff has not filed suit against him.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to contend that
the trial Court erred in dismissing the I.A., inasmuch as the
signatures on the plaint are forged signatures and the signature
are not of the plaintiff’s and the Court below ought to have sent her
admitted signatures on Ex.B1 along with the signatures on the
plaint for expert comparison.
5. Admittedly, the plaintiff was examined as PW1. She
deposed to the contents and pleadings in the plaint and she
categorically stated that she filed the suit against the defendant.
As rightly observed by the Court below, the plaintiff, being an
octogenarian might not properly recognize the signature due to
loss of sight but the fact remains that she did not deny the
pleadings in the plaint and the cross examination clearly supported
the pleadings in the plaint and she also deposed that she filed the
suit against the defendant. The suit is of the year 2006 and the
suit is at the stage of arguments. The order under challenge is of
the year 2011. When the suit is at the stage of arguments, more
particularly when the plaintiff categorically stated that she filed the
suit against the petitioner-defendant, the petitioner cannot take a
plea that the signatures on the plaint are forged signatures and
they should be sent for comparison with the admitted signature of
the plaintiff on Ex.B1.
6. In that view of the matter, I see no reason to interfere with
the impugned order.
7. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No
costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH
26
th February, 2016
ksm
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 688 of 2016
26
th February, 2016
ksm

The Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Chandra Kumar Appeal Suit No.144 of 2012 Dated 9th August, 2012Judgment: The appellant filed this appeal challenging Order, dated27-01-2012, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, refusing to register the suit filed by him on the ground that the same is barred by limitation . The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance basing on agreement of sale, dated 13-11-2008. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale, the balance amount of Rs.4 lakhs out of the total sale price of Rs.9 lakhs was to be paid within two months from the date of expiry of the limitation of the said agreement of sale. The case of the appellant is that though he had been requesting the respondent to receive the balance sale consideration and register the sale deed in his favour, the respondent did not come forward; that therefore, he got issued a legal notice to the respondent on12-10-2011; that the respondent acknowled…

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable =in VadirajNaggappa Vernekar (deceased by L.Rs) v. Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate (supra), it is held as follows: "17. It is now well settled that the power to recall any witness underOrder 18 Rule 17 CPC can be exercised by the Court either on its own motion oron an application filed by any of the parties to the suit, but as indicatedhereinabove, such power is to be invoked not to fill up the lacunae in theevidence of the witness which has already been recorded but to clear anyambiguity that may have arisen during the course of his examination. Of course,if the evidence on re-examination of a witness has a bearing on the ultimatedecision of the suit, it is always within the discretion of the Trial Court topermit recall of such a witness for re-examination-in-chief with permis…

The 1st respondent herein filed O.S.No.101 of 2011 in the Court of III
Additional District Judge, Tirupati against the appellants and respondents 2 to
5 herein, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule
property, a hotel at Srikalahasti, Chittoor District. He pleaded that the land
on which the hotel was constructed was owned by the appellants and respondents 2
and 3, and his wife by name Saroja, and all of them gave the property on lease
to M/s. Swarna Restaurant Private Limited, 4th respondent herein, under a
document …